Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:TfD)
XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 0 36 0 36
TfD 0 0 11 0 11
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 17 0 17
RfD 0 0 61 0 61
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

On this page, the deletion or merging of templates and modules, except as noted below, is discussed.

How to use this page

edit

What not to propose for discussion here

edit

The majority of deletion and merger proposals concerning pages in the template namespace and module namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Stub templates
Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself.
Userboxes
Userboxes should be listed at Miscellany for deletion, regardless of the namespace in which they reside.
Speedy deletion candidates
If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{Db-author}}.
Policy or guideline templates
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Template redirects
List at Redirects for discussion.
Moving and renaming
Use Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

edit
  1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance.
  2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template.
  3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used.
  4. The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing.

Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Instead, you should edit the template to fix its problems. If the template is complex and you don't know how to fix it, WikiProject Templates may be able to help.

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

edit

To list a template for deletion or merging, adhere to the following three-step process. Utilizing Twinkle is strongly recommended as it automates and simplifies these steps. To use Twinkle, click TW in the toolbar (top right of the page), then select XFD. Do not include the "Template:" prefix in any of the steps, unless specifically instructed otherwise.

Step Instructions
I: Tag the template. Add one of the following codes to the top of the template page:

Note:

  • If the template nominated is inline, do not add a newline between the TfD notice and the code of the template.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, make a request for the TfD tag to be added, by posting on the template's talk page and using the {{editprotected}} template to catch the attention of administrators or Template editors.
  • For templates designed to be substituted, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TfD notice to prevent it from being substituted alongside the template.
  • Do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Use an edit summary like
    Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]]
    or
    Nominated for merging; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:name of template]].
  • Before saving your edit, preview your edit to ensure the Tfd message is displayed properly.

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{subst:Tfd|heading=discussion title}} or {{subst:Tfm|name of other template|heading=discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code).

Related categories: If including template-populated tracking categories in the TfD nomination, add {{Catfd|template name}} to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TfD, this time replacing template name with the name of the template being nominated. (If you instead chose a meaningful title for a multiple nomination, use {{Catfd|header=title of nomination}} instead.)

TemplateStyles pages: The above templates will not work on TemplateStyles pages. Instead, add a CSS comment to the top of the page:

/* This template is being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Help reach a consensus at its entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024_December_5#Template:template_name.css */
II: List the template at TfD. Follow this link to edit today's TfD log.

Add this text to the top of the list:

  • For deletion: {{subst:Tfd2|template name|text=Why you think the template should be deleted. ~~~~}}
  • For merging: {{subst:Tfm2|template name|other template's name|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

If the template has had previous TfDs, you can add {{Oldtfdlist|previous TfD without brackets|result of previous TfD}} directly after the |text= before the why (or alternatively, after the }} of the Tfd2/Catfd2).

Use an edit summary such as
Adding [[Template:template name]].

Multiple templates: If this is a deletion proposal involving multiple templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfd2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be deleted. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ). Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

If this is a merger proposal involving more than two templates, use the following:

{{subst:Tfm2|template name 1|template name 2 ...|with=main template (optional)|title=meaningful discussion title|text=Why you think the templates should be merged. ~~~~}}

You can add up to 50 template names (separated by vertical bar characters | ), plus one more in |with=. |with= does not need to be used, but should be the template that you want the other templates to be merged into. Make sure to include the same meaningful discussion title that you chose before in Step 1.

Related categories: If this is a deletion proposal involving a template and a category populated solely by templates, add this code in the |text= field of the Tfd2 template but before the text of your rationale:

{{subst:Catfd2|category name}}
III: Notify users. Please notify the creator of the template nominated (as well as the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger). It is helpful to also notify the main contributors of the template that you are nominating. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template. Then, add one of the following:

to the talk pages of the template creator (and the creator of the other template for a merger) and the talk pages of the main contributors. It is also helpful to make any interested WikiProjects aware of the discussion. To do that, make sure the template's talk page is tagged with the banners of any relevant WikiProjects; please consider notifying any of them that do not use Article alerts. Deletion sorting lists are a possible way of doing that.

Multiple templates: There is no template for notifying an editor about a multiple-template nomination: please write a personal message in these cases.

Consider adding any templates you nominate for TfD to your watchlist. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors

edit

While it is sufficient to list a template for discussion at TfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.

To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the TfD discussion page itself. If you are recommending that a template be speedily deleted, please give the criterion that it meets.

edit

WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the TfD. You can use {{subst:Tfd notice}} for this.

Tagging the nominated template's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the template being listed in that project's Article Alerts automatically, if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a template with {{WikiProject Physics}} will list the discussion in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the template

edit

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template and its talkpage that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, look in the page history or talk page.

At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone else will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (That "someone" may not be you, the nominator.)

Once you have submitted a template here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is successful it will be added to the Holding Cell until the change is implemented. There is no requirement for nominators to be part of the implementation process, but they are allowed to if they so wish.

Also, consider adding any templates you nominate to your watchlist. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not mistakenly or deliberately removed.

Twinkle

edit

Twinkle is a convenient tool that can perform many of the posting and notification functions automatically, with fewer errors and missed steps than manual editing. To use Twinkle, click its dropdown menu in the toolbar in the top right of the page: TW , and then click 'XFD'.

Note that Twinkle does not notify WikiProjects, although many of them have automatic alerts. It is helpful to notify any interested WikiProjects that don't receive alerts, but this has to be done manually.

Discussion

edit

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it. Depending on the content, the template page may then be deleted; if preserving the edit history for attribution is desirable, it may be history-merged with the target article or moved to mainspace and redirected.

Templates are rarely orphaned—that is, removed from pages that transclude them—before the discussion is closed. A list of open discussions eligible for closure can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Closing discussion

edit

Administrators should read the closing instructions before closing a nomination. Note that WP:XFDcloser semi-automates this process and ensures all of the appropriate steps are taken.

Current discussions

edit

This template was a single-use external link template, but I had to replace that usage because the link went to the the website's main page (rather than directly to the Arsenic page). Now orphaned and any future uses would be worse than a simple direct link, so we should delete the template. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 article, WP:NENAN. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only use of this template is incorrect, as the homepage of the SES does not mention it at all. I feel like if there is source attribution to be given, then templates such as {{Source-attribution}} should be used. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (though I did remove the single use) and unexplained template that just adds a piped link to a botanist. Clearly not needed any more. Primefac (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's meant to be subst-only? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This links is very much MOS:EGG. I don't see how "Sm" can mean "James Edward Smith". Gonnym (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this does have a shortcut {{RPN}} it's a simple enough comment to make that I genuinely don't know if anyone uses this, or if anyone wants to use it. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two albums. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 16:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template designed to give a {{No redirect}}-style link to a redirect along with either a Special:WhatLinksHere or edit link. While I can kind of see its use, they have only been used in one set of database reports since their creation (of which they are also historic and no longer updated). Primefac (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure would be nicer if the database reports got fixed instead, but I'm doubtful that's gonna happen, ah well. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Plural form with Template:Plural abbr.
Templates both do the same thing and achieve the exact same output text. waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Edited at 15:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Did you mean to link the same template twice? It looks like you intended to propose merging it with Template:Plural abbr. Gary600 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, sorry I mean merging with Template:Plural abbr. I corrected it Gary600. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think template:plural form is clearer and would prefer merging the other way (depending on usage). Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please can someone revert this it's ruining the appearance of intro sentences across articles. Atrapalhado (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only three articles. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 13:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like Welcomeg/new, is also unused and not linked from anywhere, but received some updates a 5 years ago. Like the /new template, we don't need to keep out-of-sync forks like this. Gonnym (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this is probably a subst template so being unused doesn't mean a lot, it's also not linked from anywhere, and while titled "new", was created in 2011 and is completely outdated and out-of-sync with Template:Welcomeg. We don't need forks of the main template. Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one album and two notable singles to their name. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose still serves as a hub for all links for the band. Scuba 14:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article Heavy Moss does that job quite well already! And the articles are well linked, you can link to the band, the album and each of the singles from each and every article. This simply isn't needed. --woodensuperman 14:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlinked sub-page. Can't find usages with an insource search. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc page created 14 years ago with no edits since. Seems this has either been completed or abandoned. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sports table. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc page created almost 3 years ago with no edits since. Seems this has either been completed or abandoned. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tests created in the wrong place. Moved tests to /testcases. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Moved without redirect to User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Interlanguage link/doc/sandbox2 with comment "Save in user space subpage." by Mathglot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 11:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc page created 2.5 years ago with no edits since. Seems this has either been completed or abandoned. Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Now unused after I've copied the data to Template:Daylight saving active/doc. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted in 2020, still unused and unlinked from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs with Module:Coordinates/sandbox2 and is intended to demo sandbox vs sandbox2. Template:Coord gets a bit complex and there has been a long time effort to add additional features to it. I don't think it needs to be deleted, but as was proven the last time it was needed again, it can of course very easily be recreated. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This "new" documentation (created in 2017) isn't linked from anywhere. If this is needed, it should replace the current /doc page. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tests should be held at the /testcases page, not a /doc page (which isn't a doc page). I've made sure the test appear on the /testcases. Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Anomie/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why randomly change the conventions for naming user module sandboxes? And if there is an actual consensus for that somewhere, you should be proposing a rename rather than a deletion. Anomie 12:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not proposing a rename, I'm proposing deleting an unused module. If the user, in this case, you, still want this, then it should be moved to pseudo userspace in the Module namespace, which I've indicated above. Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in a pseudo-userspace in the Module namespace. Just not the particular pseudo-namespace you prefer. And this one isn't even a sandbox, it's a module intended for use in the Lua debug console. Anomie 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Anomie/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why randomly change the conventions for naming user module sandboxes? And if there is an actual consensus for that somewhere, you should be proposing a rename rather than a deletion. Anomie 12:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not proposing a rename, I'm proposing deleting an unused module. If the user, in this case, you, still want this, then it should be moved to pseudo userspace in the Module namespace, which I've indicated above. Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in a pseudo-userspace in the Module namespace. Just not the particular pseudo-namespace you prefer. Anomie 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused sandbox or test module. If the user still wants it move to the user's sandbox per Module:Sandbox to Module:Sandbox/Mr. Stradivarius/module name, else delete. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why randomly change the conventions for naming user module sandboxes? And if there is an actual consensus for that somewhere, you should be proposing a rename rather than a deletion. Anomie 12:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not randomly at all. This module is an unused module in the module space and is subject to all other guidelines and procedures, meaning it can be sent to TfD and deleted. Iff the user still wants the module (and so far, they have not stated that), the module should be moved to the pseudo userspace in the Module namespace, which I've indicated above. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You want guidelines and procedures? If Modules could be in the User namespace, this would be handled at WP:MFD which generally doesn't delete established users' subpages just because some busybody thinks they're "unused". But since modules need to be in the Module namespace, we need a convention for "userspace" for people to have their own modules, and pages in that pseudo-userspace should probably be judged under the same criteria as other userspace pages. I also note that the "Module:User:<name>" convention has existed for as long as the "Module:Sandbox/<name>" convention, and has the advantage of covering more than just sandboxes. Anomie 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Film writer templates

edit

This writer-specific navbox violates WP:FILMNAV, which says, "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article, and avoids putting undue weight on the contributions of certain individuals over others." This navbox is causing exactly the problem that WP:FILMNAV warns about. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. I think that in the majority of these cases the writers concerned could be considered primary creators of the material in question. I don't think bundling these nominations together is helpful, as they should each be looked at on their own merit. I'd be more concerned with the producer navboxes, espectially these days when films seem to have about a dozen producers. I'm sure I've advocated for limiting this to director roles only in the dark and murky past, but I seem to recall that "primary creator" was the compromise. What is auteur theory anyway? ;) --woodensuperman 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at all the examples, and there were none where they were always the primary creator. Are you suggesting limiting it to works where they are only the primary creator? I feel like if we don't pay attention, editors will mindlessly fill out (or restore) all credits, like the now-blocked MolAnneFinnBall567 did. It seems to be better to be all or nothing. It's not like there is zero access to writing credits; their names are always in the infobox and ideally the article body too. It's about whether or not we need yet another navbox at the very end of the article, and writers and producers are rarely the exclusive sole drivers of creativity across all their works. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these have been concerns for nearly a decade! See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 11#RFC: Filmography navboxes. --woodensuperman 13:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 distinct directly-related articles. Template offers no additional navigational benefit. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This dissertation citation template uses a URL that no longer works and is used five times. This should be deleted and replaced with Template:Cite thesis, as it allows for far more parameters. SWinxy (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace usages with {{lang|ine-x-proto}} and delete.

Proto-Indo-European language has been supported for a while now by {{lang}}, which additionally provides various checks, validations and categories, that this template does not.

The main difference between the two templates is that PIE does not italic the text or adds an asterisk (*), while Lang does. That means that when replacing, if a PIE usage

  • has an asterisk, it should be removed
  • wraps the template in italics, they should be removed

See this edit as an example.

Also somewhat related, "pie" is incorrect to use here as that is the language code for the Piro Pueblo language. Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support nomination, per nom. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Testcase with Template:Test case.
{{Testcase}} is referred to as the legacy version of the spaced {{Test case}}. They should be merged. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do think that the amount of coding that would be required to create a wrapper for the old template so that all the params can translate into the new one would be overly burdensome, and I don't think that the time spent reprogramming old test cases to follow the format of the new template would be worth it. As such, I don't think that template merging here would improve the encyclopedia on a net basis, so I think they should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace all usages (122) and delete template. Don't merge anything that the new template can already do, and only merge specific features if actually needed. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that outcome, too. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, links already included at more comprehensive {{Dennis Wilson}} navbox --woodensuperman 12:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only three of the songs in the tracklisting have articles. All the outtakes redirect to the album article. --woodensuperman 12:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:How-to with Template:Manual.
These seem to say the same thing, in different words ("contains instructions, advice, or how-to content"/ "written like a manual or guide").

Reducing the number of available duplicative templates makes it easier for editors to find the template suited to an issue which they wish to flag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge which way?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No point in external link template for a dead link. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept per Frietjes, then convert to a full citation template and not leave it in this mixed-state. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only three albums. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one album and one featured single to her credit doesn't meet the threshold of WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 10:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Template:Political parties in the Netherlands and Template:Defunct political parties in the Netherlands. I believe these templates per ideology make the template lists too cluttered, especially for active parties. Dajasj (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


All album articles are redirects, leaving only 3 band member links. Musician navboxes should include links to albums or other releases per guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Navbox. Mika1h (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This writer-specific navbox violates WP:FILMNAV, which says, "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article, and avoids putting undue weight on the contributions of certain individuals over others." This navbox is causing exactly the problem that WP:FILMNAV warns about. For example, The Lego Batman Movie has five screenwriters, and this navbox makes it seem like only McKenna and Sommers wrote that film. Spider-Man: Homecoming had six screenwriters. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle had four screenwriters. These misframings are exactly why WP:FILMNAV exists. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think that with this many writers for each film, they can be considered a primary creator for any but maybe one of these entries. --woodensuperman 14:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. I asked the templates' creator about them, and they said that they do not think the templates will be used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way too cluttered to provide a useful navigation function, no article on the subject of the navbox, not really a suitable topic for a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table template with only two transclusions. Content could easily be merged into articles that use it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 10:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only loosely related characters who make a cameo/appearance in a single series, amongst their other numerous appearances across hundreds of works of media. Fails navbox guidelines for topics requiring some sort of close relation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDCAB was a very informal process for resolving content disputes. It was shut down in 2012. We don't have similar banners for things like previous filings at WP:DRN/WP:RFC/WP:ARBCOM, which would certainly be more relevant. Maybe not relevant enough for a banner, but more relevant than a lighthearted event from 10+ years ago. Given that each banner has a hidden cost of banner bloat, we should delete it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Severity Index - this scale has only been proposed and used by a private company to compete with the indexes that the National Weather Service uses. It is not significantly covered by any major, reliable sources that are independent of the subject, making it a non-notable scale, and the sources that are used for its information have not been updated since 2008. Therefore, I believe this template should be deleted as well. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 04:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navboxes with no links, no main article, and all are empty. The class seven bracket/divison has been elimnated. All of them were blanked in November of this year. Has no use for the foreseeable future.

A similar discussion for the main navbox linking all these eight navboxes was nominated for deletion on November 29. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Redundant to {{Promotional}} (into which {{Advert}} was recently merged) or to {{Promotional section}}. Has only seven transclusions, which can be replaced by one or other of those (e.g. [1]).

Reducing the number of available duplicative templates makes it easier for editors to find the template suited to an issue which they wish to flag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked after a group editnotice was created. No longer needed, apparently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice blanked as having been unnecessary for a long time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template subpages created in 2021 and 2022, and last modified in 2022. No incoming links from discussions to explain why they were created. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These blank editnotices were created in 2011 with the summary "Creating blank edit notice to suppress default talk editnotice". As far as I can tell, there is no longer, if there ever was, a default editnotice in Wikipedia talk space. When I edit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, for example, which does not have a group or page editnotice, I do not see an editnotice. I think these blank Template-space pages are no longer serving any purpose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since they are blanked and there is no default edit notice for these pages, they are not doing anything. Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see prospective use for this entrypoint because WP:TFD specifically is only for deletions and merges, not renames, which should be carried out with {{requested move}}. Thus it is not helpful to have this template here. Awesome Aasim 19:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Squad list is featured on the main article as part of the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. This single-article TOC template was used until its article was merged as redundant. It is no longer useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even when it was used it should have been deleted as these manual ToC hide the left sided ToC on the default skin, which is used by most of our users and is much more helpful than most manual ToCs. Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2014. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This is a software version template for an article that was deleted and for software that was removed from the list page. It is no longer useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unused article content that appears to be usable only on List of Ironman Heavymetalweight Champions (2000–2009). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 18:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this category tracking template is no longer useful after this merge of {{puffery}} into {{promotional}}, per this TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Washington Commanders with Template:WikiProject National Football League.
Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Washington Commanders subproject is a subproject of WP:WikiProject National Football League so the subproject should be added the parent template and usages replaced. Gonnym (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G5 by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 08:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of {{contains special characters}}. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 02:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was literally just about to put it on a page Washweans (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which page? And why can't the preexisting template be used instead? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 02:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dont give me that sass. the preexisting one makes it seem sometimes that "oh ok yeah just like a few characters" it's not an actual warning. Washweans (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Washweans perhaps you could propose a change on the old templates talk page rather than making an entirely new template. Also Delete per nominator and for reasons already discussed on Washwean's talk page. Gaismagorm (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we don't need a different template to tell readers that there are "extreme amounts of special characters". It's an informative message, not a warning, and the information we need to convey doesn't depend on how many special characters are used. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two templates are not the same. {{Contains special characters}} is for characters that need font support, while this is just a "this article uses a lot of non-English characters". So what? What issue does that identify? Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I give up Washweans (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete - I believe I'm being targeted for being a new user. I have been reverted on all my non userpage edits, even reverting my talk page edits and that can be bannable. All my templates have been deleted and I am considering quitting attempting to be a decent mobile editor. I just want to make useful contributions, but I guess you guys just wanna be the mini mod so you do stuff like this. Washweans (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has a checkuser block now. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

No transclusions. There is limited discussion linking to this template, most of which is from 2010, when it was created. I don't know if it was ever used, or just transcluded in one place until recently, when it showed up on the unused template reports.

It may be redundant to {{Deprecated template}}.

If it is used only sometimes, it should have {{transclusionless}} added to its documentation, with an explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not entirely redundant to {{Deprecated template}}. It's always substituted rather than transcluded, and is only used rarely. Not sure how many stub templates it currently (or ever) been used on, but deprecated stub templates are usually cleared quickly and either deleted or redirected. Don't think losing it will cause much problem. Originally it was made because a few parent stub types were regularly sorted out (e.g., {{geo-stub}} to all its by-country children), and someone who didn't know how stubbinng worked would nominate the emptied template for deletion. I think there are other templates that will stop that happening though. Grutness...wha? 04:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure there is even reason to merge anything if the usage is so low. It's also not setup as a subst only template so I don't think that statement is correct. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page contains less than five people, all of whom are closely related and would already be linked together, limiting its usefulness. 2601:249:9301:D570:9061:13F5:EDBD:C800 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a bottom navigation template, which takes less visible space. Remove non-links. This has enough links for a viable navigation template. Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in the next comment, such a template already exists in Template:Muhammad Ali dynasty. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could easily be manually updated by hand since centuries only change every 100 years, and I don't even think Wikipedia will last that long. If it somehow does the current century can easily be changed. TheWikipedetalk 16:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 00:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – it seems marginally more useful than {{CURRENTMILLENNIUM}} (which was deleted three years ago), since there's a nonzero chance that Wikipedia templates will still be around in some form in 75 years. As Jonesey said, it's also more self-documenting. As for "manually updating by hand", @MouseCursor:
  • Are you proposing to just edit the template to hard-code the current century? Then TfD isn't really the place to propose that. Start a discussion on its talk page, or be bold.
  • Are you proposing to subst and delete the template? Then it couldn't easily be changed anymore!
jlwoodwa (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jonesey95 & no reason to make it harder to update the century. Just set it and forget it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, documentation, or incoming links. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under G7. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions, incoming links, or documentation. Created in 2022. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G7. -ZhaoFJx(Talk) 00:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Navbox with no transclusions, no blue links, and no main article. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
these GHSA navboxes are for local high school athletics in the US State of Georgia. The athletic governing body eliminated their 7A bracket, but it is possible they may bring it back. I would recommend keeping these navboxes in case that happens. EmperorKen (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with WikiCleanerMan. Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DS editnotice blanked in 2021 with the summary "Case not ongoing anymore". No longer used. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blank editnotices created as a test and later blanked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G3 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 16:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains no useful template content. AusLondonder (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Deprecated and no longer used. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should be used instead if a copyright violation is likely but not able to be confirmed? Traumnovelle (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We don't fish for copyvio; it should be tagged with {{copypaste}} and if nothing can be proven then the tag removed. Half the time we just removed the content as unencyclopedic or unsourced, which should have been done regardless. Wikipedia decided to not to have precautionary principle and takes up too much time and effort for us folks at Copyright problems to be reasonably expected. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that this discussion (Is {{cv-unsure}} useful to you?), while not high participation, has one of the more active copyproblems admins pointing out its current redundancy, Special:Diff/1256073496 hasn't been challenged, and we've been trying to clear this category for over two years. I've notified CP talk of this discussion. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and only two links for the family tree. None of the other members have articles and possible they are not notable. Not much use for a template to navigate with. And there is only one Adams family article that is related to this, but it's mainly about the political family of former President John Adams and John Quincy Adams. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and a navbox for a defunct conference. No use here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


How often are people getting both of these rights at the same time? I don't see why we should have a template specifically for this instead of just using {{Rollback granted}} and {{Pending changes reviewer granted}} separately. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – these are "thematically related", so I can see why the template was created, but I don't think that outweighs the costs of duplicating templates. If this could be reimplemented as a "thin wrapper" around {{rollback granted}} and {{pending changes reviewer granted}}, I'd support keeping it. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

edit

[edit]

GUAM is an inactive organization. It simply doesn't matter today. It is not talked about in the news. Countries in it have diverging geopolitical priorities. I don't think we need this navbox listing four people, some of which haven't really ever interacted with this organization since they took office, I can't see much use for it. And the bottom of the articles of Maia Sandu, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ilham Aliyev are already bloated with enough navboxes. Super Ψ Dro 12:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unused copy/paste without attribution duplicate of Template:1972 railway accidents, Template:1973 railway accidents, Template:1974 railway accidents, Template:1975 railway accidents, Template:1976 railway accidents, Template:1977 railway accidents, and Template:1978 railway accidents . Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – 'Railway accidents and incidents in xxxx' is the format currently accepted within Wikiproject Trains for these templates, as opposed to the old 'xxxx railway accidents' format. However, all existing 'Railway accidents and incidents in xxxx' (about forty of them, from 1972 to 2022 or so) were erroneously created as copy-paste from the old templates, instead of the old templates being moved to the new title. I'm not sure what's the best way to tidy this up. All years before 1972 will now be done the proper way; for later years' templates I suppose some admin action is required to sort them out. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    History merge is needed for those that aren't tagged here. These can be deleted and then the current one moved. Gonnym (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not that the template content is the same between old and new templates (I'm talking about template years 1979-2022): the content has been reformatted to make it neater and more legible, which was the main idea behind the migration from the old style templates to the new ones. The content of the new templates should be preserved; only the histories should be merged. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, including history where possible. See also User talk:The Emperor of Byzantium#Railway accidents and incidents in 1979. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the new ones, which have no significant history. If there is a new consensus name, the existing templates can be moved to the new name(s). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not that simple, it's not just a case of WP:CUTPASTE: the old template's content was reformatted and then put into the new templates, giving a neater and more legible layout based on the {{vad}} template. Deleting the new templates would wipe out a lot of good reformatting work that was indeed backed by project consensus on both the new template's name and its new layout. I'd be happy to do the work required to sort out this cock-up (since I did most of the aforementioned reformatting work), although I'm not an admin (nor do I aspire to become one), so I'm a bit limited in what I can help with. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To clarify the work that was done here: compare the old template for the year 2002 with the new one. It's not just that the name has changed; the content is significantly different (and is laid out in a much improved format in the new template). Any action intended to restore the full template history should ensure that the current content is preserved. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Navbox template with only one item in it. As always, the purpose of navboxes is to navigate between related articles, so a navbox serves no purpose if there's only one thing in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The related category has more entries, but it's neither's the nominator's or other editors' job, to fix or transclude navigation templates that the creator of the template didn't care enough to do. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as I've already voted): one article is still showing that this template isn't wanted. The onus on adding transclusions should be those wanting to keep the navbox. Either the navbox is useful on all of the links it has, or it isn't (WP:BIDIRECTIONAL). Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now on 16 articles. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I start from the philosophical perspective that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should therefore make use of the sister projects when they help us build a better encyclopedia, but that otherwise we should give them no special preference over any other content anywhere else on the internet.

This template was boldly created in 2017 without a larger discussion (or at least nothing was mentioned in the edit summaries). It takes a similar form to the much more widely used {{Wiktionary redirect}}. However, unlike Wiktionary redirect, which helps us provide information readers searching for terms that would never warrant an article, Wikispecies redirect functions more like a loophole in our notability guideline. The vast majority of its uses are for biologists that would not be notable for an article.

We have notability standards to constrain the size of the encyclopedia and reduce the maintenance burden, and I do not see a reason that we should carve out an exception for biologists just because our parent organization also happens to run a non-encyclopedia project that — unlike us — finds it appropriate to create a database of biologists. Such an exception opens some floodgates: If the WMF created, say, a Wikipaintings project that had a database of all visual artists without a notability bar, would we want soft redirects there? How about soft redirects to any concept with a Wikidata item? Or let's say we find a highly reliable non-WMF database of musicians — why not create soft redirects there for all musicians that can't survive AfD?

Either a biologist is notable and should have an article, or they are not and should not be included in Wikipedia. The only redirect in the latter case should be "go search the internet". Sdkbtalk 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - The plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. See, for example, this deletion discussion; there were no uses or foreseen uses, so the template was deleted. Should the community decide that a link to meta was necessary, it would likely be restored. This is an example of it going the other way. Even if the regular soft redirect template was technically disallowed from being invoked into the mainspace, attempts at it would lead to disarray -- at the bare minimum, this serves to plug such holes until the community makes a decision about retention or deletion.
We must also remember that the general rule for the creation of a soft sister redirect is for a topic to have a less-than-encyclopedic scope and be either commonly wikified words or repeatedly recreated (WP:SRD and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to a sister project). At least some of the scientist soft redirects that use this template probably have several wikilinks on other pages in the encyclopedia (but, regardless, that is an individual case matter for rfd). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This allows such redirects to exist until the community decides whether or not they should through deletion or discussion venues. This is a discussion venue, and I'm using it to start a discussion about whether this template should exist or not. Sdkbtalk 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Wrong venue. Nominate the redirects that use this at RfD, not the template. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery, my argument is that this template has no valid use case, so this is the intended venue. Sdkbtalk 05:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is fundamentally about the merits of redirects, not templates. Suppose this were closed as delete. The template couldn't be deleted without orphaning it. The redirects that use the template couldn't be deleted without a discussion at RfD since TfD has no authority to delete redirects (other than those pointing to templates it deletes). So what would happen? * Pppery * it has begun... 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a template that is used to categorize redirects; an example usage is a page like this. If this is closed as delete, these pages would be blanked and then eligible for deletion under {{db-blanked}} or another criterion. I'm not sure TfD has authority over soft redirects.
    Overall, this seems the most appropriate venue. If you're concerned about visibility, I can put notices on WT:Redirects or one of the village pumps. Sdkbtalk 05:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern isn't visibility. My concern is jurisdiction. What you're really asking is to delete a bunch of redirects, including ones that previously survived RfD. And this TfD would do that by the back door. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And my concern is WP:BURO. If you'd like to move the nomination to somewhere you consider more appropriate, go ahead. Otherwise, we'll consider it here. Sdkbtalk 06:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, RfD is the best venue to discuss redirects. So I suggest this nomination – which is really about redirects, not a template – should head over thataway. J947edits 07:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a lot of these while linking up new enwiki pages to Wikidata. There are a number that have articles on other Wikipedias, which might be worth investigating. For others, the wikispecies articles might provide interesting bases for new enwiki articles. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WikiProject Redirect has been notified about this discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 6 mainspace transclusions, so it has never caught on. It has a theoretical use for book titles that are not notable for an encyclopedia article, but in that case, a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}} applies. Sdkbtalk 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WT:WikiProject Redirect has been notified about this discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This template has been around since 2017 but has only 7 mainspace transclusions, so it has never meaningfully caught on. I'm not sure what sort of title it would be used for — perhaps a name of a photo that's somehow famous enough that people might reasonably search for it but not famous enough to be notable? In that case, I'd find it inappropriate, per a corollary of the notability backdoor argument I made about {{Wikispecies redirect}}. Sdkbtalk 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted some of them slightly, but those all seem like great local targets! It may now be appropriate to consider the deletion of this orphaned template; however, it would need to be restored if the community ever decided it was appropriate to target something to this sister site through a discussion at RfD (bar a blanket community prohibition against it and as the regular soft redirect template is not used in the mainspace). It must be pointed out that deleting this actually causes more potential maintenance for the community than keeping it. The template is very stable and requires little maintenance. Generally, when a redirect is created to commons it is as a hard redirect (or regular soft redirect). A bot converts the former (to regular soft redirects) while human hands convert the latter. If this is not available as a solution, then every one must either be targeted locally or listed at redirects for discussion (as when people create a soft redirect to a foreign language wiki). Thus, it reduces the workload to retain this in the event it becomes useful—which is why I am still, albeit less-adamantly, in the keep camp. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The concern with keeping it is that its existence is likely to promote inappropriate usage. Sdkbtalk 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WT:WikiProject Redirect has been notified about this discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This template is only used on a handful of manually-curated archive indexes. It can be replaced with {{archive|type=index}}. Something similar was suggested at the previous merge discussion several years back but not implemented. Rjjiii (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unnecessary fork, hasn't been updated in over five years. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is still a viable approach to solving a still-present user-visible bug in the template. DMacks (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the current talkpage regarding the bug, so it's now part of an active discussion. Hopefully the bug will get fixed (in which case, sandbox not need) or this TFD has reminded me to take another look at it. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I moved this when moving the module for a merge, but the sandbox2 page is not needed. Like the nominator says, it hasn't been used in years. Rjjiii (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SandboxN pages should only be kept if work is still being done to them. These are not pages we should keep indefinitely. Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It it literally linked in an active discussion. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where? "What links here" has no "Talk" namespace link there other than your talk page from the TfD notification. Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template_talk:Archive#Later_archives_not_linked,_take_n+1 the diff link in my "(alternately..." comment from 12:12, 24 November 2024. DMacks (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you used a URL and not a wikilink so there would be no way for it to appear on the link list. That said, calling it an active discussion is a bit of a stretch, as it was only active after the sandbox was nominated. If it wouldn't have been nominated, the template would likely continued to be forgotten. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ABF is noted. Seems pretty simple to consider that things get forgotten-about until someone else notices to remind one to revisit and act. Otherwise it would be forbidden to object to XFD of anything that was ignored for a while. As can be seen from several recent XFD of my old items, I have no problem letting things be deleted (or even explicitly endorsing such) when I no longer have current plans to act use them. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I am unable to find any discussions leading to the creation of {{Use Ugandan English}} by Cobaltcigs. Ugandan English explains that this dialect makes use of phrasing that would not be acceptable here on Wikipedia per MOS:COMMONALITY, and uses misspelled standard English words. We would never accept those misspellings here, so these templates should probably go away. I have found no information about whether Ugandan English is based on British or American English, so I can't recommend conversion to a redirect at this time. Evidence supporting a redirect is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Uganda's sole official language was English through 2005, and it remains one of the country's two official languages. There is a distinct variety of English that took hold there (Ugandan English), and it makes sense to keep this template specifically for that variety in line with MOS:ENGVAR. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sourced evidence for differences between Ugandan English and standard American or British English that would be relevant to written work here at Wikipedia. I was unable to find any in the Ugandan English article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At this stage nom has failed to provide any compelling reason to delete this template. English is an official language of Uganda. Per WP:TIES articles related to Uganda should use the variety of English used in Uganda. The nom admits they have no idea what spelling variety is used in Uganda. That's not a reason to delete the template. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence that there is a variety of English used in Uganda that is different from standard British or American English [edited to add: that is usable on Wikipedia]. Please provide sources or an example of Ugandan English spelling or vocabulary used in a Wikipedia article that would not be used in an article about another place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that you consult the relevant scholarly literature, such as this 2016 paper and this paper from 2000. That there is a distinct variety of English in Uganda is totally uncontroversial among scholars.
    I don't understand the basis for your claim that [t]here is no evidence that there is a variety of English used in Uganda that is different from standard British or American English. In fact, I would kindly ask in return: do you have scholarly sources that you are basing that radical claim on, or is the push to delete this template based merely on sloppy guesswork? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Ugandan English different from British or American English in a way that is applicable here on Wikipedia? We can't accept misspelled words or non-standard phrasing that would not be understandable by the majority of English speakers, so this template is not usable as a guide for writing articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I keep seeing "keep" votes in these related discussion that read as if their pride is hurt, and not arguments based on the actual issue. These templates are meant to inform editors that the spelling of this article should use a specific variant. If Ugandan English has no unique spelling to it and it uses American English, then there is no need for that template. We could, to quite the masses, add to the documentation and banner that Ugandan English also uses this. Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Ugandan, so my pride is certainly not hurt. What evidence is there that Uganda uses American English? AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or replace. As in this example, the participants of this discussion will likely have a very Eurocentric worldview where the English language is more homogeneous and the differences between their western counterparts are better documented. If this template is deleted, a new template should replace it to prevent Use American English from dominating articles by default. Not only that but that template should also make known that the English variant used in so-and-so article may have differences common to the region. As someone who had actually lived in the third world, I can't support deleting this template without either more representation in this discussion or preferably a proposal for an adequate replacement. Considering the fact that the nom has depreciated the EngvarB template at the same time without proposing a replacement, I'm opposing this deletion for now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:
Something tells me nom is running blindfolded straight into a cultural and linguistic minefield... my advice: don't do it, it's not worth it...
I can tell you're trying to help and I can see your thinking. You're looking to standardise articles, based on language - and language, involves morphology, syntax and semantics (leaving out phonetics and phonology, WP is written). And you're trying to do it, by enforcing the use of codified or standard variants of language.
The problem is, most variants of English and indeed most languages are not codified, including Ugandan, Kenyan, Indian English and many more. There are no standardised versions of most variants. This is even more the case with a language used as a lingua franca because those languages are means of communicating through a secondary language between people who speak different native tongues - expression of ideas is more important than the agreement of words.
If you want Ugandan English in a nutshell: it has evolved from and retains most features of British English (this is broadly the case for most of the Commonwealth/ex-Empire), and especially when used at a higher register and written, it is much like standard British English, although it may have borrowed some Americanisms, just as British English does. It also has incorporated a lot of words from Bantu languages, especially those describing local things, concepts, topics, people, nature, etc, i.e. it has its own Uganda-specific lexicon. Mostly, these borrowings or introductions are from Luganda (indigenous) or Swahili (mostly non-indigenous Bantu language). Sometimes, expressions and grammar has entered from Bantu languages too, but again, this will feature more in spoken vs. written Ugandan English.
At a broader level, Kenyan, Tanzanian and Ugandan English together are often treated as forms of East African English - they share lots of words, and similar changes are seen across the English variants (also, Swahili is a bantu-language, and much of the populations of all countries are Bantu).
As far as WP is concerned, or language in general, an overly rigid set of rules will always cause problems. The Ugandan template, to me, says use Ugandan English terms to describe Ugandan things. Sure, explain the meaning of those terms well for an international audience, but don't rob a culture of its own rich cultural lexicon.
Also think, if you got to delete the template as you wished, what would you do with all the other English variant templates on WP? (also, have a look at the Kenyan English WP article, because it explains a lot of what Ugandan English involves, in a better way than I have here).
If you really want to get into it, here's some reading for you....
Release notes: East African English https://www.oed.com/discover/release-notes-east-african-english (A list of Ugandan English words most recently added to the OED).
Schmied, Josef, 'East African English', in Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola, and Devyani Sharma (eds), The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes, Oxford Handbooks (2017; online edn, Oxford Academic, 16 Dec. 2013), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199777716.013.35/ [Available here]
Schmied, Josef. "East African English (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania): morphology and syntax". 4 Africa, South and Southeast Asia, edited by Rajend Mesthrie, Bernd Kortmann and Edgar W. Schneider, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2008, pp. 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208429.2.451/ [Available here]
Schmied J. Standards of English in East Africa. In: Hickey R, ed. Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Studies in English Language. Cambridge University Press; 2012:229-255. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139023832.013/
Fisher AEC. Assessing the state of Ugandan English. English Today. 2000;16(1):57-61. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400011470/
N Nassenstein. A preliminary description of Ugandan English. World Englishes 35 (3), 396-420 https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12205
Ssempuuma, Jude. 2013. Ugandan English. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), The Mouton world atlas of variation in English, 475–482. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ladefoged, Peter, Ruth Glick, Clive Criper, Clifford H. Prator & Livingstone Walusimbi. 1972. Language in Uganda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Isingoma, Bebwa, 'The Sociolinguistic Profile of English at the Grassroots Level: A Comparison of Northern and Western Uganda', in Christiane Meierkord, and Edgar W. Schneider (eds), World Englishes at the Grassroots (Edinburgh, 2021; online edn, Edinburgh Scholarship Online, 23 Sept. 2021), https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474467551.003.0003/
Ssentanda, M. E., & Wenske, R. S. (2023). Language ideologies in the promotion of English in Uganda’s educational system: a historical overview from the 1890s to 2007. South African Journal of African Languages, 43(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2023.2294601/ Montezuma69 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sorry for the wall of text... Montezuma69 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute that Ugandan English is real, but we simply cannot write articles using Ugandan English spelling and syntax here at Wikipedia, per various sections of MOS. Regarding specific vocabulary, we have MOS:COMMONALITY for that, which is why "mandazi", one of the words in the helpful OED list that was linked above, is linked to its article when it is used in Impurity after childbirth#Tanzania. No Ugandan English template is used or should be used in that article. It would help for the "Keep" proponents to link to specific parts of specific articles for which the Ugandan English templates provide guidance to editors that helps them write articles in a specific variety of English. Without those specific examples, it is unclear whether these templates are actually useful in providing guidance to editors, which is their purported purpose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remark. Even if Ugandan English as suitable for use on Wikipedia is not, at the moment, any different from British English, what is the problem in keeping it? (I reserve my opinion on that particular question.) There is a clear upside, viz. that if/when UgE does clearly require distinct treatment, we shan’t have to relabel all the relevant pages. (For example, at the moment, I think it is quite clear that the default assumption should be BrE orthography; but matters could change. Keeping the template tracks that.) Docentation (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The downside, and the reason for this nomination, is that Ugandan English, as described in the article, contains grammatical constructions and spelling differences that should never be used in Wikipedia articles, except as examples on pages describing Ugandan English. Since the purpose of the templates is to guide editors in how to write articles, the templates are providing invalid guidance about the grammar and spelling that is to be used in articles. They are contrary to MOS, a Wikipedia guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Lanka Premier League with Template:WikiProject Cricket.
These 4 projects were redirected into the newly created Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Asia cricket task force. They should now use the project banner with a new asia parameter like {{WikiProject Cricket|asia=yes}}. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge, these templates could instead be converted into wrapper templates for {{WikiProject Cricket}} by using the following code,
{{WikiProject Cricket{{{{{|safesubst:}}}ifnotempty|{{{class|}}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}!}}class{{{{{|safesubst:}}}=}}{{{class|}}}}}|Asia=yes}}

@Gonnym: It could be done once the draft banner in Template:WikiProject Cricket/sandbox is moved to the main one. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio please explain how exactly that wrapper with the parameter |Asia=yes works with your oppose. Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: If a wrapper template like below for example has been added to a page, it will be substituted as the following one,
  • {{WikiProject Example|class=C}} will substitute as {{WikiProject Cricket|class=C|Asia=yes}}
  • {{WikiProject Example}} will substitute as {{WikiProject Cricket|Asia=yes}}
Tools like WP:RATER has native support for wrapper templates and will substitute them directly. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:WikiProject Africa banner wrapper templates for some examples... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd take a look at those pages you'd see that I've edited a lof of them. My point was that you can't use |Asia=yes as it doesn't exist. Why doesn't it exist? Because you just opposed it's addition. Gonnym (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in this situation a wrapper is incorrect. The wrapper does not set |Pakistan Super League=yes, |Indian Premier League=yes so a user using these would end up with an unexpected result, unlike Template:WikiProject Angola which does set |Angola=yes. Gonnym (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't oppose the addition of |Asia=, I opposed the template merger which would result in the previous templates being left as redirects. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Let's keep the discussion here only then.
Now, what would exactly be done if the TfD is made consensus to merge... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: The edit request I placed on the talk page involved the implementations of,
  • FormerFA, FormerFL, FormerGA, Current event and Cricket Collaboration
  • Re-worded text for |MAIN_TEXT=
  • New image for |IMAGE_LEFT=
  • Taskforces for ICC, Women's cricket, Africa, Americas, Europe and EAP
How any of these are related to this discussion??? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with the first 3 bulleted points, I oppose the task force one as I've explained being a separate discussion from the merge as the merge was the exact point of it and we would end up here anyways, which is a WP:DISCUSSFORK. Gonnym (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the task force, I've explained above, that adding |Asia=yes to the template will allow for the merger of these 4 templates, which you've opposed. Additionally, you've proposed making them wrappers, but that adds more confusion as they don't produce the result a user would expect to get from them, as they aren't a 1:1 wrapper, but a wrapper of a redirected name. That's isn't really helpful. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: But, what about the other 6 task forces; they are freshly new ones-no mergers - we can add them to the banner now as they are unrelated to the TfD. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Merge WikiProjects back into this project the question was regarding a merge of four Asian projects, but at the end of the discussion you proposed creating additional task forces. Are you sure that is the actual consensus there? See KjjjKjjj's comment My only main concern is that some of the task forces might be inactive most of the time due to little coverage. Creating task forces pre-emptively where no one actually said they'll be a part of and which would stay inactive isn't helpful. I'd say close the ones you created (other than Asia) and wait until a group of editors actually want to work in that area. Note that there is a lot of maintenance required for task forces, even inactive ones (categories, templates, gnoming, etc.). Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear consensus for Asia task force (see the comments of that discussion, task force was endorced by me too, despite initially proposing a merge). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Buckethead task force with Template:WikiProject Musicians.
At the TfD 1 year ago, it was suggested to merge Template:WikiProject Buckethead task force with Template:WikiProject Musicians.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym, Cyfal, and WikiCleanerMan: pinging all participants of the previous TfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll be a little rude and just say completely delete. There were many WikiProjects created for single artists and bands which unsurprisingly are inactive or just flat out dead. The last non-bot related post on that project page was 15 years ago. Just delete and get rid of stale projects. We should stop supporting indefinitely stuff like this. And this goes for most music artist projects. Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed discussions

edit

A list of completed discussions that still require action taken on the template(s) — for example, a merge between two infoboxes — can be found at the "Holding Cell".

For an index of all old and archived discussions, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Archives.